CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29338/22 GRADEL D.O.O. against Croatia lodged on 1 June 2022 communicated on 18 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly unreasonable costs order imposed on the applicant company in civil proceedings. The applicant company instituted proceedings against a private individual seeking payment for its services for the renovation of the respondent’s house in the amount of approximately 52,000 euros (EUR). The domestic court established that the applicant company’s claim was well-founded, but since the respondent had meanwhile died, and his successors were liable only up to the value of the inherited property, the applicant company was awarded a significantly lower amount than claimed (approximately EUR 4,500). Taking as a basis of the calculation the amount initially sought by the applicant company, the domestic court ordered it to reimburse the costs of proceedings to the respondents which equalled approximately the amount it had been awarded by the judgment (some EUR 4,400). The applicant company complains, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the costs order violated its property rights.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the allegedly excessive award of costs of proceedings to the respective defendants violated the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Čolić v. Croatia , no. 49083/18, §§   67-70, 18 November 2021; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no.   72152/13, §§   91-111, 6   September 2016; and Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 108-110, 18   July 2013)?